Gov. Evers Files Response to Expert Report Submitted to Wisconsin Supreme Court in Redistricting Lawsuit Last Week

Gov. Evers Files Response to Expert Report Submitted to Wisconsin Supreme Court in Redistricting Lawsuit Last Week   MADISON — Gov. Tony Evers today filed a response to the expert report submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court last week in ongoing redistricting litigation regarding Wisconsin’s legislative districts.

In January, Gov. Evers submitted fair maps to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider that are responsive to the will of the people, avoid partisan bias, and increase the number of competitive legislative seats. Additional details on the governor’s submitted maps are available here. Two neutral experts selected by the Court were charged with reviewing all submitted maps, including the governor’s, and released their review of the parties’ maps last week. The governor’s statement regarding the submitted expert report is available here.

The report submitted by two neutral experts to the Court last week specifically noted maps submitted by Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty were “partisan gerrymanders.” In relevant part, the experts noted, “[T]he Legislature’s plan does not deserve further consideration….We also note that both the Legislature’s plan and the Johnson plan, from a social science perspective, are partisan gerrymanders.” The expert report also noted the map submitted by Gov. Evers and three other maps under consideration by the Court are “similar on most criteria.”

Gov. Evers, in a filing today with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asked the Court to remove maps submitted by Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (“Respondents”) from further consideration because, as the two neutral experts concluded, the Republican-aligned maps submitted to the Court fail to meet constitutional requirements, are not politically neutral, and prioritize their political party. Further, the governor asks the Court to adopt the fair maps he submitted last month or one of the other remaining maps the experts deemed “similar on most criteria” (“Viable Plans”).

“Respondents’ maps cannot be considered as the remedy,” the filing argues. “Adopting the Governor’s plans or another set of the Viable Plans will ensure that, for the first time in more than a decade, Wisconsinites are able to exercise their fundamental right to vote in districts that are constitutional, fair, and reflect the will of the people.

“As courts across the country have recognized, expert analysis of proposed redistricting plans using measures of partisan bias and neutrality helps ‘ensure that all voters have “an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation,”’” the filing continues. “The report from this Court’s neutral consultants reaffirms the clear divide in this case. It is between proposals like the Governor’s, which comply with constitutional and traditional districting criteria, reduce partisan bias, and promote responsiveness to the vote, and Respondents’ proposals, which are extremely biased and promote entrenchment.

“[M]ost glaring, Respondents’ maps perform very poorly on partisan metrics—in fact, the report has good reason to label their proposals ‘gerrymanders,’” the filing states. “As the Governor’s proposals and multiple others demonstrate, it is perfectly possible to draw maps in Wisconsin that both promote democracy and adhere to mandatory and traditional redistricting principles.

“The Court should either select the Governor’s proposals or proposals that perform similarly well on this Court’s criteria. Only that path complies with this Court’s order and advances the overarching goal of redistricting—to achieve fair and effective representation for all citizens,” the filing concludes.

An online version of this release is available here.

NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.